The Science of Keeping Food Safe - Research Paper Example

 The Science of Keeping Food Safe Introduction Plants and animals with favorable traits have for thousands of years been conventionally bred. Normally, the desired traits would be selected and then combined for propagation through recurrent sexual crossings over time. This process has been noted to take long, with Key, Ma and Drake arguing that it could take even 15 years to yield new varieties (290). Genetic modification allows for the acceleration of this process through highly targeted approaches which allow for the introduction of some genes to overcome sexual incompatibility and increase the available gene pool size. Verma et al. define genetically modified organisms as organisms (other than humans) whose genetic material has been altered in unnatural manner through natural recombination or mating (3). This would modify the genes endogenous to the organism or express the genes not native to the organism. It is this genetic modification that has caused a heated debate from various stakeholders. Ethical dilemmas have barred the public from appreciating the benefits of genetically modified foods (Freedman 80). It has made the public ignorant of the widespread food insecurity facing the global population with 900 million people suffering from undernourishment. However, despite the widespread public fear, genetically modified (GM) foods are safe for human consumption and a solution to food insecurity. Arguments against Genetically Modified Foods Critics of GM foods argue that interfering with the genes of organisms through genetic modification would adversely affect the health of humans in future generations. Freedman documents these critics as wondering the reason for scientists pushing for the adoption of GM foods when it remains obvious that the introduction of a gene into the genome of a varied organism would result in unpredictable reactions (85). Normally, the reaction would occur gradually and would be expressed in the future generations when the genes become different in position and characteristics, far from what was intended when it was being introduced into the organism (Shaw 279). To prove this argument, critics of GM foods have cited numerous studies where animals, particularly rats, have been used to show the adverse health effects of GM foods. Rats fed with GM corn foods were noted to develop cancer in later life. Thus, if rats suffered adverse health effects from GM foods, so would humans. However, Verma et al. criticize such claims, citing the lack of clear research methodologies in such studies (4). Furthermore, rats and humans have varied biological makeup, with the rats used for the study noted to be highly susceptible to cancer in later life than a normal human case, the reason why the results from studies on animals could not be inferred on humans. The support of GM technology by scientists seeks to promote their selfish interests despite their full understanding that the technology harms human health. According to Freedman these scientists appreciate that with the widespread adoption of the technology, they would continue receiving funding for their projects, a significant proportion of such funding being from sellers of GM products (85). This conflict of interest causes these scientists to promote positive results of GM foods for the wellbeing of humans so as to satisfy their sponsors and continue benefiting from the associated funding. The biologists who venture into this area of study to publicize the health risks associated with GM foods would be attacked and silenced by the critical players in the food industry. In fact, most of such people would have their reputations as scientists spoilt. These criticisms have deterred the adoption of GM foods as an alternative to the normally produced foods and in fact a more effective approach to curbing food insecurity. The eight EU countries have even gone to an extent of banning such foods from their respective territories apart from some GM maize and potatoes. Asia has also been reluctant to approve of GM foods within its borders, with China and India not keen to allow the insect resistant GM rice noted to be high-yielding and uses limited amounts of pesticides. Ironically, even in Africa where millions of people die from starvation, GM foods have been banned (Freedman 85). America, Canada, Argentina and Brazil have been left to dominate this field, cumulatively producing over 90% of GM foods in the world. These countries have continued to benefit greatly from the advantages of genetic modification of organisms. Arguments for Genetically Modified Foods Extensive guidelines and approaches have been reinforced to ensure that GM foods are safe for human consumption. The US government regulates the safety of GM foods through numerous authorities. The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which dictates all foods to adhere to safety requirements is reinforced, even with regards to GM foods, by the US Food and Drug Administration, FDA. In consultation with GM food developers, the authority makes sure that all safety procedures for producing and handling food are met. Other bodies responsible for ensuring the safety of GM foods to humans include the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA (Winter and Gallegos 2). With all these bodies looking out for the safety of foods consumed by humans, no chances exist to harm human health through GM foods. Furthermore, genetic modification has been practiced over years with no adverse health effects reported on humans. In defining genetic modification, Key, Ma and Drake observe its existence since the historic times when animals and seeds with desired traits were used for breeding (290). Farmers would select such organisms with desired traits and crossbreed them so as to produce organisms with such traits. In fact, Freedman notes that as early as 10,000 BC, humans were already selecting crops that were large in size and resistant to insects and pests for planting in subsequent seasons (80). This is the basis upon which the production of GM foods was founded. Scientists have been using mutagenic approaches over years to have better strains of crops. With Winter and Gallegos documenting no negative health effects on humans consuming such crops over years, then, GM foods do not negatively impact on human health (1). These scientific techniques of modifying organisms were invented so as to provide a solution to the trial and error methods that were used historically by farmers so as to provide an opportunity to make informed decisions regarding the breeding of desired animals and crops. Finally, genetically modified foods have been widely appreciated as the solution to global food insecurity. The use of genetic modification techniques plays a crucial role in increasing food supplies across the world. Skeptics have been noted to argue against GM foods without having proper knowledge on the issue. Verma et al. give the example of countries in Africa which lack adequate information on GM technology, seeking to instead depend on Europe and its decision to disapprove of GM foods into its borders, without independently considering the benefits drawn from the technology by other countries such as the US (7). Evidence given by Freedman indicates that genetic modification has led to an increased output of cotton, corn and soy by about 20% to 30%, solving the problem of people who could not access food before (86). This technology would therefore be important in ensuring food security, appreciating the estimate by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization of the need to grow food supplies by 70% by the year 2050 so as to meet the food demand by the growing population. In addition to this, it would be appreciated that global climatic change has enhanced desertification, making vast portions of arable land unfit for agriculture. Shaw argues that with genetically modified crops having the ability to grow even in salty and dry land, coupled with their tolerance to insects, herbicides and diseases and ability to withstand extreme temperatures, food security could be achieved by practicing farming of GMOs (256). This would ensure an increase in food supply, causing food prices to drop and thus greater accessibility to food by the growing populations. Conclusion Thus, the debate of whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption continues to elicit diverse arguments. The definition of genetically modified food, this being the foods whose genetic materials have been altered through natural recombination or mating, sets the motion for debate. Critics argue that this alteration of genes in foods could result in adverse genetic expressions in humans in future with scientists who know such adverse effects seeking to protect their selfish interests by not exposing the facts and silencing efforts to publicize such facts. However, these criticisms are mere fears with baseless arguments as humans have practiced genetic modification since historic times with no notable health side effects. Furthermore, the government has numerous bodies checking for safety of GM foods to humans. With hunger and climatic changes facing the world, farming approaches using genetically modified breeds known to be resistant to harsh climatic conditions and resistant to insects, herbicides and diseases would ensure a constant adequate supply and accessibility of food thus promoting food security. Therefore, the fears for GM foods do not hold any valid basis, thus the need for the public to appreciate the safety of genetically modified foods for human consumption as a solution to the problem of food insecurity. Works Cited Freedman, D. H. “Are Engineered Foods Evil?” Scientific American 309.3 (2013): 80 – 88. Print. Key, S., J. K. Ma, and P. M. W. Drake. “Genetically Modified Plants and Human Health.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101.6 (2008): 290 – 298. Print. Shaw, I. C. Food Safety: The Science of Keeping Food Safe. Iowa: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Print. Verma, C., et al. “A Review on Impacts of Genetically Modified Food on Human Health.” The Open Nutraceuticals Journal 4 (2011): 2 – 11. Print. Winter, C. L. and L. K. Gallegos. , L. K. “Safety of Genetically Engineered Food.” Agricultural Biotechnology in California (2013): 1 – 5. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. Read More